Aims Short-term weight loss may lead to remission of type 2 diabetes but the effect of maintained weight loss on cardiovascular disease (CVD) is unknown. We quantified the associations between... Show moreAims Short-term weight loss may lead to remission of type 2 diabetes but the effect of maintained weight loss on cardiovascular disease (CVD) is unknown. We quantified the associations between changes in weight 5 years following a diagnosis of diabetes, and incident CVD events and mortality up to 10 years after diagnosis.Materials and methods Observational analysis of the ADDITION-Europe trial of 2730 adults with screen-detected type 2 diabetes from the UK, Denmark and the Netherlands. We defined weight change based on the maintenance at 5 years of weight loss achieved during the year after diabetes diagnosis, and as 5-year overall change in weight. Incident CVD events (n = 229) and all-cause mortality (n = 225) from 5 to 10 years follow-up were ascertained from medical records.Results Gaining >2% weight during the year after diabetes diagnosis was associated with higher hazard of all-cause mortality versus maintaining weight [hazard ratio (95% confidence interval): 3.18 (1.30-7.82)]. Losing >= 5% weight 1 year after diagnosis was also associated with mortality, whether or not weight loss was maintained at 5 years: 2.47 (0.99-6.21) and 2.72 (1.17-6.30), respectively. Losing >= 10% weight over 5 years was associated with mortality among those with body mass index <30 kg/m(2) [4.62 (1.87-11.42)]. Associations with CVD incidence were inconclusive.Conclusions Both weight loss and weight gain after screen-detected diabetes diagnosis were associated with higher mortality, but not CVD events, particularly among participants without obesity. The clinical implications of weight loss following a diagnosis of diabetes probably depend on its magnitude and timing, and may differ by body mass index status. Personalization of weight loss advice and support may be warranted. Show less
Aims To present the longer-term impact of multifactorial treatment of type 2 diabetes on self-reported health status, diabetes-specific quality of life, and diabetes treatment satisfaction at 10... Show moreAims To present the longer-term impact of multifactorial treatment of type 2 diabetes on self-reported health status, diabetes-specific quality of life, and diabetes treatment satisfaction at 10-year follow up of the ADDITION-Europe trial. Methods The ADDITION-Europe trial enrolled 3057 individuals with screen-detected type 2 diabetes from four centres [Denmark, the UK (Cambridge and Leicester) and the Netherlands], between 2001 and 2006. Participants were randomized at general practice level to intensive treatment or to routine care . The trial ended in 2009 and a 10-year follow-up was performed at the end of 2014. We measured self-reported health status (36-item Short-Form Health Survey and EQ-5D), diabetes-specific quality of life (Audit of Diabetes-Dependent Quality of Life questionnaire), and diabetes treatment satisfaction (Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire) at different time points during the study period. A mixed-effects model was applied to estimate the effect of intensive treatment (intention-to-treat analyses) on patient-reported outcome measures for each centre. Centre-specific estimates were pooled using a fixed effects meta-analysis. Results There was no difference in patient-reported outcome measures between the routine care and intensive treatment arms in this 10-year follow-up study [EQ-5D: -0.01 (95% CI -0.03, 0.01); Physical Composite Score (36-item Short-Form Health Survey): -0.27 (95% CI -1.11, 0.57), Audit of Diabetes-Dependent Quality of Life questionnaire: -0.01 (95% CI -0.11, 0.10); and Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire: -0.20 (95% CI -0.70, 0.29)]. Conclusions Intensive, multifactorial treatment of individuals with screen-detected type 2 diabetes did not affect self-reported health status, diabetes-specific quality of life, or diabetes treatment satisfaction at 10-year follow-up compared to routine care. Show less
Griffin, S.J.; Rutten, G.E.H.M.; Khunti, K.; Witte, D.R.; Lauritzen, T.; Sharp, S.J.; ... ; Sandbaek, A. 2019
Background The multicentre, international ADDITION-Europe study investigated the effect of promoting intensive treatment of multiple risk factors among people with screen-detected type 2 diabetes... Show moreBackground The multicentre, international ADDITION-Europe study investigated the effect of promoting intensive treatment of multiple risk factors among people with screen-detected type 2 diabetes over 5 years. Here we report the results of a post-hoc 10-year follow-up analysis of ADDITION-Europe to establish whether differences in treatment and cardiovascular risk factors have been maintained and to assess effects on cardiovascular outcomes.Methods As previously described, general practices from four centres (Denmark, Cambridge [UK], Leicester [UK], and the Netherlands) were randomly assigned by computer-generated list to provide screening followed by routine care of diabetes, or screening followed by intensive multifactorial treatment. Population-based stepwise screening programmes among people aged 40-69 years (50-69 years in the Netherlands), between April, 2001, and December, 2006, identified patients with type 2 diabetes. Allocation was concealed from patients. Following the 5-year follow-up, no attempts were made to maintain differences in treatment between study groups. In this report, we did a post-hoc analysis of cardiovascular and renal outcomes over 10 years following randomisation, including a 5 years post-intervention follow-up. As in the original trial, the primary endpoint was a composite of first cardiovascular event, including cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular morbidity (non-fatal myocardial infarction and non-fatal stroke), revascularisation, and non-traumatic amputation, up to Dec 31, 2014. Analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle. ADDITION-Europe is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00237549.Findings 343 general practices were randomly assigned to routine diabetes care (n=176) or intensive multifactorial treatment (n=167). 317 of these general practices (157 in the routine care group, 161 in the intensive treatment group) included eligible patients between April, 2001, and December, 2006. Of the 3233 individuals with screen-detected diabetes, 3057 agreed to participate (1379 in the routine care group, 1678 in the intensive treatment group), but at the 10-year follow-up 14 were lost to follow-up and 12 withdrew, leaving 3031 to enter 10-year follow-up analysis. Mean duration of follow-up was 9.61 years (SD 2.99). Sustained reductions over 10 years following diagnosis were apparent for bodyweight, HbA1c, blood pressure, and cholesterol in both study groups, but between-group differences identified at 1 and 5 years were attenuated at the 10-year follow-up. By 10 years, 443 participants had a first cardiovascular event and 465 died. There was no significant difference between groups in the incidence of the primary composite outcome (16.1 per 1000 person-years in the routine care group vs 14.3 per 1000 person-years in the intensive treatment group; hazard ratio [HR] 0.87, 95% CI 0.73-1.04; p=0.14) or all-cause mortality (15.6 vs 14.3 per 1000 person-years; HR 0.90, 0.76-1.07).Interpretation Sustained reductions in glycaemia and related cardiovascular risk factors over 10 years among people with screen-detected diabetes managed in primary care are achievable. The differences in prescribed treatment and cardiovascular risk factors in the 5 years following diagnosis were not maintained at 10 years, and the difference in cardiovascular events and mortality remained non-significant. Copyright (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Show less
Objectives To determine at what glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) level physicians from eight European countries would initiate insulin in type 2 diabetes, which physician or practice related factors... Show moreObjectives To determine at what glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) level physicians from eight European countries would initiate insulin in type 2 diabetes, which physician or practice related factors influenced this level and whether physicians would differentiate between a younger uncomplicated patient and an older patient with comorbidities.Design Cross-sectional study with data from the Guideline Adherence to Enhance Care study.Setting and participants 410 physicians from both primary and secondary care from Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Sweden, the Netherlands and the UK.Outcome measures Physicians were asked at which HbA1c level they would initiate insulin for a young, uncomplicated patient (vignette 1) and for an older, complicated patient (vignette 2). We evaluated differences in HbA1c levels between physicians from different countries using analysis of variance. To identify physician and practice related factors associated with HbA1c level at initiation of insulin, we performed multivariable linear regression. Multiple imputation was used to deal with missing data.Results In Germany, Ireland, Sweden, the Netherlands and the UK, the HbA1c levels for initiating insulin in vignette 2 (range: 60.0 to 66.0mmol/mol; 7.6% to 8.2%) were higher than for vignette 1 (range: 57.2 to 64.2mmol/mol; 7.4% to 8.0%). In multivariable analysis, the HbA1c level at which insulin was initiated only differed between countries (vignette 1): Dutch physicians initiated insulin at a lower HbA1c level compared with Belgium, France and the UK. No physician or practice factors were independently associated with HbA1c level at insulin initiation.Conclusions When deciding on individualised HbA1c targets for insulin initiation, physicians from five countries took patient's age and comorbidity into account. The HbA1c level at which physicians would initiate insulin therapy differed between countries. Show less
Aim: To evaluate if, one year after notification of possible overtreatment, diabetes care providers de-intensified glucose-lowering medications and to gain insight into the opinions and beliefs of... Show moreAim: To evaluate if, one year after notification of possible overtreatment, diabetes care providers de-intensified glucose-lowering medications and to gain insight into the opinions and beliefs of both care providers and patients regarding de-intensification.Methods: Mixed methods using routine care data from five health-care centres in the Netherlands. Patient characteristics and medication prescription of patients, previously identified as possibly over-treated, were extracted from patients' medical records. Opinions of care providers were obtained through interviews. Patients received questionnaires about their diabetes treatment and were asked to participate in focus groups.Results: A total of 64 elderly patients with type 2 diabetes were previously identified as possibly over-treated and included; 57.8% male, median age 75 years (IQR=72-82), median diabetes duration 12 years (IQR=8-18). De-intensification was implemented in more than half (n=36) of them. Care providers preferred person-centred care above just setting general HbA1c target values, considering patient characteristics (such as comorbidity) and patient's preference. Patients valued glucose levels as most important in determining their treatment. Both patients and care providers felt that de-intensification should occur gradually.Conclusion: Treatment had been de-intensified in more than half of the patients (56.3%). Insight in reasons for not de-intensifying elderly patients is important since treatment for them can be "person-centred care". De-intensification is an iterative and time-intensive process. Show less
Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) on insulin therapy are less satisfied with their diabetes treatment than those on oral hypoglycaemic therapies or lifestyle advice only. Determinants of... Show morePatients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) on insulin therapy are less satisfied with their diabetes treatment than those on oral hypoglycaemic therapies or lifestyle advice only. Determinants of satisfaction in patients with T2DM on insulin therapy are not clearly known. The aim of this study was to determine the association of treatment satisfaction with demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with T2DM.|For this study we used data from the GUIDANCE (Guideline Adherence to Enhance Care) study, a cross-sectional study among 7597 patients with T2DM patients from Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Sweden, the Netherlands and the UK. The majority of patients were recruited from primary care. Treatment satisfaction was assessed by the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ, score 0-36; higher scores reflecting higher satisfaction). To determine which patient characteristics and laboratory values were independently associated with treatment satisfaction, a linear mixed model analysis was used.|In total, 1984 patients on insulin were analysed; the number of included patients per country ranged from 166 (the Netherlands) to 384 (Italy).|The mean DTSQ score was 28.50±7.52 and ranged from 25.93±6.57 (France) to 30.11±5.09 (the Netherlands). Higher DTSQ scores were associated with having received diabetes education (β 1.64, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.32), presence of macrovascular complications (β 0.76, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.31) and better health status (β 0.08 for every one unit increase on a 0-100 scale, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.10). Lower DTSQ scores were associated with more frequently perceived hyperglycaemia (β -0.32 for every 1 unit increase on a seven-point Likert scale, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.13), and higher glycated haemoglobin (β -0.52 for every percentage increase, 95% CI -0.75 to -0.29).|A number of factors including diabetes education, perceived and actual hyperglycaemia and macrovascular complications are associated with treatment satisfaction. Self-management education programmes should incorporate these factors for ongoing support in patients with T2DM. Show less
